Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1230 Rte 28 COMPLETE DRC PACKET 121024Review is: D Conceptual ~ Formal D Binding (404 MotelsNCOD/R.O.A.D. Project) ~ Non-binding (All other commercial projects) Review is by: D Planning Board !!I Design Review Committee DESIGN REVIEW COMMENT SHEET Meeting Date: December 10, 2024 Applicant: Samk Realty 1 LLC (Timothy Kelley) Site Location: 1230 Route 28, South Yarmouth Persons Present: OCR Members Present Yarmouth Town Staff Present Steve O'Neil Kathy Williams Jim Saben Sara Porter DRC Review for this project started at: 4:01 PM DRC Review ended at: 4:54 PM Map: 60 Lots: 88 Zone(s): B2 Guests Tim Kelley On a motion by Steve O'Neil, seconded by Jim Saben, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted (3-0) to adjourn the December 10, 2024 DRC meeting at 4:54 PM. Project Summary General Description: The Applicant is proposing to raze and replace a fire damaged commercial building in the existing footprint. Existing parking in the front is to be retained and a new garage door proposed facing Route 28. Limited site work is proposed, but includes some plantings. Summary of Presentation: Tim Kelley is looking to take the building down and replace it in the same footprint and style. He is trying to dress up the building with the doghouse dormers in the front. The other change is adding the garage door in the front, although Mr. Kelley would prefer to have the garage door located in the back as it would improve accessibility. DRC Questions & Discussions: Jim Saben asked about the proposed use of the building , which Mr. Kelley indicated would depend upon the market, but he could possibly use it himself for his pool business, rent it out or sell it. Sara Porter asked about the type of windows being proposed. Mr. Kelley indicated the double hung windows are on the side and in the rear with larger picture windows in the front. Ms. Porter asked about using a pair of double hung windows in the front rather than the single larger glass and suggested two over two windows. Ms. Porter noted that the garage door looks like fake wood, and she would prefer a smooth finish garage door. Ms. Porter noted the single door entrance, preferring a French door with side light. Steve O'Neil noted that we want the fa9ade to be pleasing to the public eye. Mr. O'Neil also discussed the relocation of the garage door. Mr. Kelley would like to have it located in the rear. Further discussed locating the parking in the rear to green up the front. Mr. O'Neil asked about the plantings and lighting. Mr. Kelley indicated the proposed planters and trees but could green up the area in the front with the parking in the rear. No proposed site lighting. Mr. Kelley indicated he would have a sidewalk along the side to get from the rear parking to the front door. Mr. Kelley was open to ideas but was trying to limit the Special Permit relief required. Mr. O'Neil asked about fencing and storage of materials. Mr. Kelley noted there is a fence on the rear and side of the property and all storage would be internal. Ms. Porter asked about who would be visiting the property, but Mr. Kelley is unclear of the use at this time. Mr. Kelley indicated he would have one apartment in the rear of the building. Mr. Saben was glad to hear Mr. Kelley would move the garage door as it is not safe to have anyone backing out onto Route 28. Mr. Saben asked about the use as it relates to the building architecture. If this is to be used for a retail space, may want the picture windows rather than a pair of double hung windows. Mr. Kelley was concerned it might look like a house with double hung windows. Ms. Porter noted that she would be okay with the picture windows in the front. Mr. Kelley noted that without the garage door, could have a couple more picture windows in the front (possibly with grill inserts) with the revised door style. Mr. Sabin noted that clapboards in the front would look nice. Kathy Williams suggested including a sidewalk to Route 28. She expressed some concerns with the amount of parking, especially as 2 are used for residential which may ultimately impact the property use. Mr. Sabin asked about the planting area, foundation plantings, grass and buffer trees. Ms. Porter wanted more plantings in the front without impacting visibility and minimizing lawn area. Mr. Saben suggested low maintenance plantings and hiring a landscape designer. Mr. Kelley noted he wants the property to look nice. Mr. Kelley indicated he would have a sign in the front with a surrounding planter. The DRC is in support of relocating the parking and the garage door to the rear of the building; eliminating parking in the front and adding a mix of plantings, trees and grass; and providing pedestrian connections to the rear parking and to Route 28. Ultimately, recommended pairs of double hung windows rather than picture windows; and French style door with side light in the front facade. Review Comments In Relation To The Design Standards SITING STRATE GIES Sect. 1, Streetscape D NIA 00 Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Although the building is in close proximity to Route 28 with a street facing entrance, there is existing parking in front that is shown to remain, which is a Discrepancy. However, would meet the Standard if relocate the parking and garage door to the rear and include buffer plantings. The front fa~ade exceeds 50' without modulation but appears proportional. Sect. 2, Tenant Spaces 00 NIA D Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Sect. 3, Define Street Edge D NIA 00 Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Existing parking is shown to remain between the building and street. A 6' wide planting area is shown adjacent to Route 28 along with proposed planters near the building, with no plant species identified. With the proposed planting areas, it is unclear where the existing parking would be located and how many spaces would be available. As originally proposed, the design would be a Discrepancy, but would meet the Standard if relocate the parking and garage door to the rear and include buffer plantings. Sect. 4, Shield Large Buildings 00 NIA D Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Sect. 5, Design a 2nd Story 00 NIA D Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Sect. 6, Use Topo to Screen New Development 00 NIA D Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Sect. 7, Landscape Buffers/Screening D NIA 00 Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: See Comments for Sect. 3 -Define Street Edge. Need to identify plantings and native tree species to be used. 'ARMOUTH TOWN CLERK RE DEC 11 '24 AMlLliB Sect. 8, Parking Lot Visibility D NIA l!l Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Parking spaces are shown in the front of the building and are highly visible from Route 28, which is a Discrepancy. Would meet the Standard by locating the parking spaces and garage access to the rear of the property and including buffer plantings. Sect. 9, Break up Large Parking Lots l!l NIA D Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Sect. 10, Locate Utilities Underground D NIA D Meets Standards, or l!l Discrepancies: The Applicant would like to go with underground utilities, but would have to go under Carter Road which may be cost prohibitive. Sect. 11, Shield Loading Areas D N/A l!l Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: The garage door in the front would be a Discrepancy, but would meet the Standard if locate the garage door in the rear of the building. BUILDING STRATEGIES: Sect. 1, Break Down Building Mass -Multiple Bldgs. l!l NIA □ Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Building is relatively small, less than 3,000 sf footprint. Sect. 2, Break Down Building Mass -Sub-Masses l!l NIA D Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Sect. 3, Vary Facade Lines D NIA D Meets Standards, or l!l Discrepancies: Front fat;ade exceeds 50' without modulation but appears proportional. Sect. 4, Vary Wall Heights D NIA l!l Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Wall heights vary with the gable ends. Sect. 5, Vary Roof Lines D NIA l!l Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Dormers have been added along the front fat;ade to break up the longer roof line. Sect. 61 Bring Down Building Edges l!l NIA D Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Sect. 7, Vary Building Mat'ls For Depth D NIA l!l Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Building is relatively small, but consider clapboards along the front fat;ade to vary the materials. Sect. 81 Use Traditional & Nat'I. Building Mat'ls D NIA l!l Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Sect. 9, Incorporate Pedestrian-scaled Features l!l NIA D Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Sect. 10, Incorporate Energy-efficient Design D NIA l!l Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Next step for applicant: l!l Go to Site Plan Review D Return to Design Review for Formal Review On a motion by Steve O'Neil, seconded by Sara Porter, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted (3-0) to approve these DRC Comments as meeting minutes for the December 10, 2024 DRC meeting for the proposed building reconstruction at 1230 Route 28. ARMGUTH TOWN CLERK RE DEC 11 '24 AMll:49 Received by Applicant{s) ATTACHMENTS: • December 10, 2024 Agenda • Aerial and Photos • DRC Application: o DRC Application and Materials Specification Sheet o Cut sheets on Doors, Garage Door and Windows o Plot Plan: Prepared by All Cape Septic and Survey, dated 11/18/24 o Architectural Plans: Prepared by HMO Architects, LLC, dated 11/3/24 unless otherwise noted • Ex-1: Existing Floor Plan and Rear Elevation, dated 1/14/24 • Ex-2: Existing Front, Left & Right Elevations, dated 1/14/24 • A2-1-Alt-1: Front and Rear Elevations • A2-2-Alt-1: Left and Right Elevations 1230 Route 28, South Yarmouth MA Old Trading Post Building Photo XX11/26/24 4:30PM Proposed Garage Door Style